If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You need to get yourself a good dictionary and look up the word "occupation", man.

The Japanese constitution was signed on November 3rd, 1946. Obviously, this was after they had been defeated and surrendered. The military was HERE in Japan but it wasn't an OCCUPYING force because at that point we were working WITH and not AGAINST the civilian government and the population of the country, in order to help them rebuild. And since we'd seen to it that the buildup of a domestic military would be unconstitutional in Japan, the bases we established here were not only to expand our security in Asia but to protect Japan as well. (I just went to my friend's place at a residential base last week. To this day Japan foots the bill for maintaining the cost of living of U.S. forces and their families here. We don't pay them rent for using their land; they pay us to keep them safe). And in fact, we never occupied any of the four main islands of Japan (Honshu, Kyushu, Shikoku and Hokkaido). The only territories which may have been considered "occupied" by the U.S. during the war were some of the Okinawan and other South Pacific islands that Japan had laid claim to as their empire expanded.

We never were really an occupying force in South Korea either, as we were there at the invitation of the South Korean regime which was seeking to defend itself against North Korean attacks after Seoul fell. And like in Japan, once the conflict had ended, the role of the U.S. in South Korea was to help rebuild, and increase security for both S. Korea and the U.S. by establishing bases there.

Germany was more complicated, of course, due to the slicing and dicing of the country after the war, but again, after it was all said and done (and most specifically after the U.S. had gone far in gaining the trust of the West Germans with the Berlin Airlift), we were there on friendly, not hostile terms, and thus not an occupying force.

Now, in Iraq, not even the government we more or less installed there wants us around anymore, let alone the vast majority of the citizens. Sure, a lot of people fear what will happen if we pull out in too hasty a manner, but they also believe that our presence in the greatest source of instability there, and it's pretty damn close to nobody who wants us to be there long term. So we are there against the will of the people and if we stay there much longer we will be there against the will of the government as well. We are truly an occupying force.

So please, don't try to portray me as not knowing what I'm talking about with your little "sad" comment, when it's you who didn't understand what I meant in the first place:

We never occupied Japan.

We never occupied South Korea.

And from Germany's surrender in WWII onward, we never occupied Germany, either.

But we are, most definitely, an unwelcome occupying force in Iraq.

thanks for the history lesson and defined positions, something I wish we got from all ends of discussions. It's just yet another example of things are spun to defend failed bush policies.

You need to get yourself a good dictionary and look up the word "occupation", man.

The Japanese constitution was signed on November 3rd, 1946. Obviously, this was after they had been defeated and surrendered. The military was HERE in Japan but it wasn't an OCCUPYING force because at that point we were working WITH and not AGAINST the civilian government and the population of the country, in order to help them rebuild. And since we'd seen to it that the buildup of a domestic military would be unconstitutional in Japan, the bases we established here were not only to expand our security in Asia but to protect Japan as well. (I just went to my friend's place at a residential base last week. To this day Japan foots the bill for maintaining the cost of living of U.S. forces and their families here. We don't pay them rent for using their land; they pay us to keep them safe). And in fact, we never occupied any of the four main islands of Japan (Honshu, Kyushu, Shikoku and Hokkaido). The only territories which may have been considered "occupied" by the U.S. during the war were some of the Okinawan and other South Pacific islands that Japan had laid claim to as their empire expanded.

We never were really an occupying force in South Korea either, as we were there at the invitation of the South Korean regime which was seeking to defend itself against North Korean attacks after Seoul fell. And like in Japan, once the conflict had ended, the role of the U.S. in South Korea was to help rebuild, and increase security for both S. Korea and the U.S. by establishing bases there.

Germany was more complicated, of course, due to the slicing and dicing of the country after the war, but again, after it was all said and done (and most specifically after the U.S. had gone far in gaining the trust of the West Germans with the Berlin Airlift), we were there on friendly, not hostile terms, and thus not an occupying force.

Now, in Iraq, not even the government we more or less installed there wants us around anymore, let alone the vast majority of the citizens. Sure, a lot of people fear what will happen if we pull out in too hasty a manner, but they also believe that our presence in the greatest source of instability there, and it's pretty damn close to nobody who wants us to be there long term. So we are there against the will of the people and if we stay there much longer we will be there against the will of the government as well. We are truly an occupying force.

So please, don't try to portray me as not knowing what I'm talking about with your little "sad" comment, when it's you who didn't understand what I meant in the first place:

We never occupied Japan.

We never occupied South Korea.

And from Germany's surrender in WWII onward, we never occupied Germany, either.

But we are, most definitely, an unwelcome occupying force in Iraq.

Why can't you can't connect those simple dots

Yes of course we are welcome in all those places now

We were not always welcome, why is that so hard to understand??

Those bases were established because of the war time issues invited in some uninvited in others.

Point being we were there on military missions at first that turned into peacetime missions

Why people think the exact same thing could not happen in Iraq is beyond me

1. to take or fill up (space, time, etc.):
2. to engage or employ the mind, energy, or attention of:
3. to be a resident or tenant of; dwell in:
4. to take possession and control of (a place), as by military invasion.
5. to hold (a position, office, etc.).
–verb (used without object)
6. to take or hold possession.

here is the definition for you.......so you can figure it out

invite or by force we are still occupying those areas.....well at least the dictionary says we are

Don't you think that if McCain is elected we could end up with a perm base in Iraq?? Circumstances may be different in each of these cases.........my point and stance has always been that the end result could possibly be the same

Last edited by Randy West; 07-10-2008 at 04:39 PM.

Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government, owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.-Theodore Roosevelt

They use force, to make you do, what the deciders, have decided you must do.
ZdlR

thanks for the history lesson and defined positions, something I wish we got from all ends of discussions. It's just yet another example of things are spun to defend failed bush policies.

did you not read through all the posts or???

I have said we should not establish permanent bases in Iraq a couple of different times. I have also said military bases for the US in the middle east are a bad idea.

A number of different times I have said pull out completely and let Israel handle their own backyard.

Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government, owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.-Theodore Roosevelt

They use force, to make you do, what the deciders, have decided you must do.
ZdlR

In Iraq, WE are the aggressor, we were NOT invited, and we are NOT welcome there by the vast majority of the population.

It is completely, 100% DIFFERENT.

And I'm sorry, I should have been more specific, but "occupying force" is the real term you need to understand. Not the Webster definition of "occupy" as in the bathroom is occupied. I thought that might have been understandable, but whatever.

So let me explain it to you in clear terms:

An "occupying force" is a military presence that is in a territory on hostile terms, against the will of the citizens and/or government of that territory.

Dig?

HOSTILE.

AGAINST THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

Again, in Japan, Germany, and South Korea we were NOT an occupying force because we had negotiated the surrender, terms of which were our presence there to establish bases and help rebuild (in the case of Japan and Germany), and in South Korea we were invited by the government and the people wanted us to help defend them and help rebuild.

WE WERE NOT THERE ON HOSTILE TERMS.

We were there by mutual agreement and/or invitation, which means that WE WERE NOT AN OCCUPYING FORCE.

In Iraq, this could not be further from the truth. We are occupying Iraq.

Why people think the exact same thing could not happen in Iraq is beyond me

Don't you think that if McCain is elected we could end up with a perm base in Iraq?? Circumstances may be different in each of these cases.........my point and stance has always been that the end result could possibly be the same

The exact same thing CANNOT happen in Iraq.

If McCain is elected I think he'll do his damndest to establish permanent bases in Iraq, which is part of the reason I don't want him elected, since those bases will never be welcomed or enjoy the same kind of mutual agreeability/stability as the bases we have in Japan, Germany and South Korea.

No, the end result in Iraq cannot possibly be the same as those countries.

Why?

1) Religion

There is just a critical mass of the population in Iraq that believes so strongly that we are infidel occupiers of their holy land that our presence will never be generally welcomed there as it is welcomed (or at least tolerated) in those other 3 countries. Which leads me to...

2) Violence

Because of the degree of religious fervor fueling the anger towards and hatred of the American presence in Iraq - and the individual American soliders and contractors who personify that presence - there will NEVER be a cessation of violence against the U.S. presence in Iraq as long as that presence is military. Never. McCain says he wants to pretty much maintain current troop levels until U.S. casualties are reduced to zero, and THAT IS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. Suicide bombings aren't going to stop. IED attacks aren't going to stop. Mortar raids on the green zone (or whatever other "safe zones" they might try to create) aren't going to stop.

Near where I live, the Yokosuka Naval Base - where the Kitty Hawk parked, one of the biggest bases we have, if I understand correctly - opens its gates to the public once or twice a year and lets people walk around certain areas of the base, go shopping there, buy some pizza and hamburgers, watch a fireworks show.

If you think it's ever gonna be like that in Iraq, man, you are either blinding yourself to reality due to your McCain love, or dreaming of a fantasy world in which Islamic extremists just decide to change their minds and start liking us, or both.

In Iraq, WE are the aggressor, we were NOT invited, and we are NOT welcome there by the vast majority of the population.

It is completely, 100% DIFFERENT.

And I'm sorry, I should have been more specific, but "occupying force" is the real term you need to understand. Not the Webster definition of "occupy" as in the bathroom is occupied. I thought that might have been understandable, but whatever.

So let me explain it to you in clear terms:

An "occupying force" is a military presence that is in a territory on hostile terms, against the will of the citizens and/or government of that territory.

Dig?

HOSTILE.

AGAINST THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

Again, in Japan, Germany, and South Korea we were NOT an occupying force because we had negotiated the surrender, terms of which were our presence there to establish bases and help rebuild (in the case of Japan and Germany), and in South Korea we were invited by the government and the people wanted us to help defend them and help rebuild.

WE WERE NOT THERE ON HOSTILE TERMS.

We were there by mutual agreement and/or invitation, which means that WE WERE NOT AN OCCUPYING FORCE.

In Iraq, this could not be further from the truth. We are occupying Iraq.

The exact same thing CANNOT happen in Iraq.

If McCain is elected I think he'll do his damndest to establish permanent bases in Iraq, which is part of the reason I don't want him elected, since those bases will never be welcomed or enjoy the same kind of mutual agreeability/stability as the bases we have in Japan, Germany and South Korea.

No, the end result in Iraq cannot possibly be the same as those countries.

Why?

1) Religion

There is just a critical mass of the population in Iraq that believes so strongly that we are infidel occupiers of their holy land that our presence will never be generally welcomed there as it is welcomed (or at least tolerated) in those other 3 countries. Which leads me to...

2) Violence

Because of the degree of religious fervor fueling the anger towards and hatred of the American presence in Iraq - and the individual American soliders and contractors who personify that presence - there will NEVER be a cessation of violence against the U.S. presence in Iraq as long as that presence is military. Never. McCain says he wants to pretty much maintain current troop levels until U.S. casualties are reduced to zero, and THAT IS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. Suicide bombings aren't going to stop. IED attacks aren't going to stop. Mortar raids on the green zone (or whatever other "safe zones" they might try to create) aren't going to stop.

Near where I live, the Yokosuka Naval Base - where the Kitty Hawk parked, one of the biggest bases we have, if I understand correctly - opens its gates to the public once or twice a year and lets people walk around certain areas of the base, go shopping there, buy some pizza and hamburgers, watch a fireworks show.

If you think it's ever gonna be like that in Iraq, man, you are either blinding yourself to reality due to your McCain love, or dreaming of a fantasy world in which Islamic extremists just decide to change their minds and start liking us, or both.

I don't see anywhere that I stated the outcome would be the same

Or that I was advocating placement of bases there, I think exactly the opposite.

You just admitted in your post that IF McCain is elected it could happen, and that somehow I was voting for him.

How do you get out of any of my post that I am for McCain or for bases in Iraq is beyond me.

Last edited by Randy West; 07-11-2008 at 01:33 AM.

Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government, owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.-Theodore Roosevelt

They use force, to make you do, what the deciders, have decided you must do.
ZdlR

I'm sorry if I was mistaken about that, but it's just that a lot of the arguments you're making here seem to be echoes of McCain's talking points. My bad for jumping to conclusions, though.

No worries for sure

I like reading your views on political happenings, and tend to agree with you more than you would think.

McCain is a little hot tempered for my style really though. Another problem is I don't hardly believe ANYTHING a politician has to say. They can all talk a good game for the most part.

I don't want another base on foreign soil hostile situation or not..........more money to a military industrial complex is exactly the opposite of my desire. We have work to do right here in this country and those dollars should be spent here.

I don't really argue for or against any of it I just try to express my views on it

Last edited by Randy West; 07-11-2008 at 01:53 AM.

Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government, owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.-Theodore Roosevelt

They use force, to make you do, what the deciders, have decided you must do.
ZdlR

talk like a republican, act like one, smell like one? what is left to imagine?

Another infamous don't read all the post but make a statement on it post from Vet.

I very clearly state I am NOT for bases in Iraq

But read it however it suits you

This is like four or five posts up

I don't want another base on foreign soil hostile situation or not..........more money to a military industrial complex is exactly the opposite of my desire. We have work to do right here in this country and those dollars should be spent here.

Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government, owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.-Theodore Roosevelt

They use force, to make you do, what the deciders, have decided you must do.
ZdlR

Another infamous don't read all the post but make a statement on it post from Vet.

I very clearly state I am NOT for bases in Iraq

But read it however it suits you

This is like four or five posts up

I don't want another base on foreign soil hostile situation or not..........more money to a military industrial complex is exactly the opposite of my desire. We have work to do right here in this country and those dollars should be spent here.

Sorry randy, but based on other threads I have read you seem to be a Republican IMO. Also I have read ALL posts on this thread, don't get poopy.

Sorry randy, but based on other threads I have read you seem to be a Republican IMO. Also I have read ALL posts on this thread, don't get poopy.

Coolio dude

go RAIDERS

But this is what I had to say about McDrain the american people

McCain is a little hot tempered for my style really though. Another problem is I don't hardly believe ANYTHING a politician has to say. They can all talk a good game for the most part.

I am sure I have some ideas that fall under conservative views
I know I have some that folks would consider liberal

I am sure you do as well............and know it's all good.........we like to bust each others chops a bit

Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government, owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.-Theodore Roosevelt

They use force, to make you do, what the deciders, have decided you must do.
ZdlR